continued from previous post...
The administration presented the board 3 lists of budget "cuts"; green, yellow, and red. The green and yellow lists were recommended by the administration but the red list was not. If all 3 lists were implemented, the tax increase for next year would amount to 2.17%. Please remember in reality the "cuts" are not real cuts, they are cuts to a budget that has increased spending over last year. Even with the "cuts" we are still spending about 5% more this year than last (a 2.5% tax increase PLUS a $3MM fund-balance withdrawal = ~5%).
The board was almost equally split in giving direction to the administration. Half the board asked for a 4.5% tax increase (the green and yellow lists), while the other half wanted the red list included with some minor exceptions. Since the board was split, the board president gave the administration the 2.5% tax increase direction (to the surprise of many). The cuts hit all portions of the budget and Dr. Andrejko specifically said that "no one will be happy", meaning everyone will lose something because the cuts were spread out equally. Putting things in perspective, the "cuts" are very small in comparison to the entire 85MM budget. We're asking the school to cut the budget by 1/85 or 1.1%. Clearly a 1.1% "cut" is something that would not even cause a hiccup in most businesses or government offices, however, in a school district it is the end of the world. The music and art departments were fuming at the prospect of losing even ONE position and lobbied about 30 parents to not cut music and make public comments. However, none of the programs cut would affect academics! Remember, we are not "cutting ", just not increasing the budget as much as the administration wants! Even in the worst case of "cuts" the district will spend about 5% MORE compared to last year!
The reason this is so important is that this year we were able to go to the "fund balance" to cover most of the expense increase. However, with the fund balance depleted with this year's withdrawal, the reality is that if the district cannot control its insatiable appetite for more money from year to year (mostly driven by union contracts), next year's budget, which already has two renovation projects in place, will have to fund its entire growth with a huge tax increase - perhaps 8-12%. The only way to stop that is to slow down the growth this year.
Our efforts at controlling costs will be very difficult it we have 1000 people at the meeting telling the board not to "cut" ANY programs. The school district has shown it can be very effective at lobbying parents and students with scare tactics to pressure the board to increase taxes.
What we need is an equal amount of people telling the board not to raise taxes! I can guarantee that the school teachers are already strongly lobbying parents and students telling them the cuts are the end of the world. I'm hoping that you can forward this e-mail to as many people as you know to come to the meeting on 8 May and voice their concerns about any increases in taxes during a very difficult economy. Remember, no academic programs are affected. Come and tell the school district that a 1.1% "cut" to a budget that increases spending by 5-6% is REASONABLE!
The school district should not be exempt from hard economic times!
Please pass this along to others and make it a point to be at the 8 May meeting. Bring at least three friends and have them bring two more!
Paul
(May 1, 2008 | post #47)

Putting Orloff in charge of taxes is akin to giving Count Dracula the keys to the local blood bank.
Wake up Richland, your taxes are going to QUADRUPLE if the BOS passes the Police Liaison Board's reccomendations for the increase in patrol officers.
(Apr 27, 2008 | post #10)

Actually, Woldow has done the spin for the next election with his article on Tim Ritter on 2/21/08.
I'm not concerned with an election 2 years away...I AM concerned with Orloff's obsession with QCSD. As for the QCSD board elections; bye-bye and good riddance to Stepanoff and Alfonso.
The hate and vengeance come from Woldow and Orloff, not me! 68% of Woldow's articles have targeted QCSD, and he even had the nerve to compare our SCHOOL DISTRICT to Coyote's! Once a pervert, always a pervert.
(Apr 27, 2008 | post #9)

Really?
A little Richland/QCSD History 101 for you then:
May 25, 2006: QCSD Board meeting. Stepanoff proposed Orloff as budget consultant for QCSD (which was in violation of the School Board Code of Conduct). Nancy Tirjan and Linda Martin table the budget consultant position. Orloff gets mad and throws his proposal at the board as he leaves in a furor.
June 12, 2006: Richland BOS meeting: Orloff proposes the at large voting petition...which gets shot down in court.
Rest of 2006 - November 6, 2007: Orloff and Stepanoff back "Reform Party" where Orloff was trying to enlist June Hunt where she would have 'no heavy lifting' and should 'vote on Paul's cue.' (They were financially backed by Orloff, Stepanoff and Woldow's developer, Wayne Rosen)
Stepanoff openly confesses to threatening an oline blog poster with violence.
November 6, 2007: Election Day. Linda Martin beats LouEllen Renshaw and Stepanoff loses his bid for a majority on the board.
November 8, 2007 - present: Two thirds of Woldow's columns have been directed at QCSD, viciously attacking Dr. Andrejko, administration, and the board majority.
April 24, 2007: Orloff's letter to the editor calling for his "Tax Summit"
This is NOT paranoia, but genuine concern about his ultimate intentions. This 'summit' is now almost two years in the making. Orloff has a history of enacting revenge on those who oppose him, or have wronged him in some way.
His 'information' will no doubt be maipulated spin to enhance his views, just like the spin that was used as the battle cry for the Reform Party.
Beware of a wolf in sheep's clothing.
(Apr 27, 2008 | post #5)

If you read Rick Orloff's letter to the editor this week, it reads like a manifesto for overthrowing the QCSD School Board majority!
Orloff is a two-faced hypocrite! He writes "I have reviewed QCSD's audit statements and formulated cost saving ideas that would slow, or even reduce, school taxation and other local taxes."
But, he wants to increase the RTPD and RAISE our local taxes. One word: HYPOCRITE.
He is going to host a "Tax Summit" in Richland this summer. The last paragraph of his letter concerns me the most:
"The Summit is intended to be a beginning. If local leaders desire to further pursue the ideas generated there, we will move ahead with more concrete plans. We invite all residents to come and see how open government is practiced - and what Andrejko and Van Valkenburgh have been keeping form you.
Rick Orloff, MBA, CPA
Richland Township"
This reads like Orloff is planning a coup d'etat of QCSD to me. What 'concrete plans' do they have. People, you should be wary of this. If's very disturbing. It also reeks of REVENGE.
(Apr 27, 2008 | post #1)

Ricky just voted no because his boyfriend, Paul, said no to it!
To all of you who voted for Orloff...be careful for what you wish for, you may just get it!
Just remember: SIX more years of this nonsense!
(Dec 12, 2007 | post #6)

If ya ain't Baptist, then ya ain't goin ta Heaven." That's their motto.
The TEACH their children in Upper Bucks Christian School to HATE Catholics! When my nephew was in 6th grade there, we were having a family get together, and religion came up in conversation. He said, "I thought we were supposed to hate Catholics?"
I almost fell off my chair when he said that! I asked who said this to him, and he said by the teachers in school!
Bethel Baptist Church should be renamed Bethel Bigot Church. Maybe they're an offshoot of Wellsboro Baptist Church...the idiots who say God hates America.
(Dec 12, 2007 | post #31)

Dum4U & Marie (who I believe to be one in the same) - Why the bloviating about the golf course? It never happened. It was just a 'suggestion.' The Y, however, almost came to fruition, and more of Orloff's wasteful spending occurred because of the litigation involved. I brought up the Y because IF it would have passed, it would have opened the door for other building projects on open space.
"Cluster " development is the same as increased density. Why else would you have homes built on 1/10 of an acre? The leftover open space in these developments is mostly unbuildable property anyway--dentention basins and wetlands.
Yes, the township should have to use tax dollars to purchase land to build on...we voted for a tax increase to purchase OPEN SPACE, not building lots. It's not the money in this case, it's the principal. There is no mention in the 2002 referndum for the township to use purchased or otherwise procured open space to be used as the supervisors' see fit.
(Dec 7, 2007 | post #24)

Thank you for answering your own question about deed restricting! Of course it will lower a properties value!
I know what the Pres. Board is there for, and Kathy and her team do a bang up job too!
As for the preserved open space for increased density, the "open space" in these developements includes detention basins and wetlands that couldn't be built on anyway...no benefit to anyone there!
As for Z's golf course, only a small percentage would have been buildings...the majority would have been greens and fairways! Besides, Richland would reap all the fees of the golf course, unlike the Y...but that never happened; the Y almost did happen!
Oh, this wasn't a test. Orloff and Staats' 'brilliant idea' hurt Richland's credibility.
(Dec 6, 2007 | post #21)